In layman's terms, the real question here is why we have a universe which is full of matter and has very little anti-matter. One of my pet theories, which I have no juried articles to support, flows from the Feynman idea of anti-particles as ordinary matter moving backward in time. If this fundamental idea is correct, there is an obvious solution.

At the Big Bang matter moved predominantly in our time direction, while anti-matter segregated out by moving in the opposite time direction. Lots of new matter and anti-matter was created near the Big Bang moment. Much of the anti-matter created in the first few seconds of our side crashed back to collide with the wave of matter coming the other direct and visa versa.

Almost all the anti-matter in our universe now comes from the rare event of new anti-matter being created in the near future and moving backwards towards us and usually getting anniliated. Of course, to us, this looks like matter-antimatter pairs forming spontaneously out of high energy with both objects then moving forward in time until the anti-matter hits matter and annilates into energy.

This little pet theory has virtue of both explaining the matter-antimatter imbalance and resolving the big question of what happened before the Big Bang, which becomes an event at the middle of time, instead of the beginning of time.

In Ashtekar's recent survey he has a "summary and outlook" section at the end where he suggests some things that may come up in the future
including unification of LQG with a theory of matter.

In this outlook idea, matter might arise in the same way as space and time do---matter might emerge from quantum excitations of the geometry of space.

maybe it is worth quoting this paragraph, at bottom of page 31, right at the end of the article. I have emphasized the word speculation, which Ashtekar used to describe this idea.

---quote Ashtekar from Gravity and the Quantum---
• Unification. Finally, there is the issue of unification. At a kinematical level, there is already an unification because the quantum configuration space of general relativity is the same as in gauge theories which govern the strong and electro-weak interactions. But the non-trivial issue is that of dynamics. I will conclude with a speculation. One possibility is to use the ‘emergent phenomena’ scenario where new degrees of freedom or particles, which were not present in the initial Lagrangian, emerge when one considers excitations of a non-trivial vacuum. For example, one can begin with solids and arrive at phonons; start with superfluids and find rotons; consider superconductors and discover cooper pairs. In loop quantum gravity, the micro-state representing Minkowski space-time will have a highly non-trivial Planck-scale structure. The basic entities are 1-dimensional and polymer-like. Even in absence of a detailed theory, one can tell that the fluctuations of these 1-dimensional entities will correspond not only to gravitons but also to other particles, including a spin-1 particle, a scalar and an anti-symmetric tensor. These ‘emergent states’ are likely to play an important role in Minkowskian physics derived from loop quantum gravity. A detailed study of these excitations may well lead to interesting dynamics that includes not only gravity but also a select family of non-gravitational fields. It may also serve as a bridge between loop quantum gravity and string theory. For, string theory has two a priori elements: unexcited strings which carry no quantum numbers and a background space-time. Loop quantum gravity suggests that both could arise from the quantum state of geometry, peaked at Minkowski (or, de Sitter) space. The polymer-like quantum threads which must be woven to create the classical ground state geometries could be interpreted as unexcited strings. Excitations of these strings, in turn, may provide interesting matter couplings for loop quantum gravity.
---end quote---

So, marcus, how we should call baryogenesis in LQC? Quantum gravity baryogenesis? Or perhaps Loop Quantum Cosmology baryogenesis? Or other name, i don't want to impose mine.

I admit that there are a great deal of models in the list of 42 that I haven't heard about before. So I'm doing a bit of investigation. For example, axino induced baryogenesis was proposed by Silvia Mollerach in 1991 in this paper
http://library.fnal.gov/archive/1991/pub/Pub-91-340-A.pdf [Broken]

So, marcus, how we should call baryogenesis in LQC? Quantum gravity baryogenesis? ....

I'm satisfied with the category that is already on your list as #33.
And maybe it should be reiterated, for emphasis, that what Ashtekar was offering is what he called a speculation---in the "outlook" part of his paper where he was imagining future developments in LQG.

and the emphasis was not on baryons, per se, but on how several kinds of matter fields could arise naturally from the spin networks used in LQG to describe quantum states of space.

So maybe Ashtekar's tentative looking ahead shouldn't yet be counted as an actual case of your type #33 of baryogenesis

So, perhaps you are referring to option 15. Interesting option
But' there's indeed a 43th face, and appeared Friday and is called Anomaly-induced baryogenesishttp://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0411380Anomaly-induced baryogenesis

So, perhaps you are referring to option 15. Interesting option
But' there's indeed a 43th face, and appeared Friday and is called Anomaly-induced baryogenesishttp://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0411380Anomaly-induced baryogenesis

Yes, I think #15 is most likely. Also, your link is a "neutrino" involved one too. (?) Yes?

Lab Guy , the little I have read of the paper indicates me that Majorana neutrinos and the triangle anomaly (formula 1) play an important role in this theory, but AFAIK the existence of Majorana particles has still been not proven, so this theory must be thrown with the rest to the pile of speculative theories